Our Boys Behaving Badly
Green.....I refer you to the companion Thread (Substitute Marine A for Pilot A) and the comments posted there.
Gen Stabler makes some rather dubious comments there as well....such as....
How does the Royal Marines "Look After his Family"...having convicted Marine A of Murder, sentenced him Ten Years to Life in Prison, given him a Dishonorable Discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances?
You Higher Moral Ground folks sound a bit confused to me.
Killing Wounded who are not fighting back is the same no matter their status of Prisoner or Not a Prisoner. The difference is we think it legitimate to kill them from the air but not face to face. You folks who wish to claim the High Moral Ground should embrace that concept as otherwise you give up that Lofty Perch.
I am saying it is immoral to have a double standard such as was applied to the Marine.
It is the double standard I am offended by.
I have never said the Marine did nothing wrong....just that he should be granted the same leeway Apache Pilots are given.
Once a Sniper whacks a fellow and he is plainly wounded, no longer a threat, but then takes a second shot....would you do to the Sniper as happened to the Marine?
What is the difference there?
If a Grunt pops a Taliban fighter with a Small Arms round, knocks him down, and the Wounded guy is laying in the middle of the road....and the Soldier whacks him again.....is that illegal in your book?
You High Moral Ground folks realize you undertake the obligation to render the same medical care to a wounded combatant as to one of our own wounded....right?
Granted the Taliban do not qualify for any protection under the Geneva Accords as they are Illegal Combatants by definition.
When folks get on this higher moral ground argument....they have to remember where it leads.
And so you know....I do not have a severe mental defect....just a strong feeling of disgust over the way the Senior Officers in our militaries will hang out our Troops to dry without taking any responsibility for their own foul deeds and gross incompetence.
How many of our Troops have bled out waiting for a Medevac that did not come until way too late because of some very stupid rules and the refusal to provide the necessary air cover to enable the Helicopters to get to the wounded.
Read up on one fight....Robert's Ridge and the young Air Force PJ named Cunningham then talk to me about Higher Moral Ground, Good Order and Discipline and all that crap.
Gen Stabler makes some rather dubious comments there as well....such as....
I hope, and expect, that the RM will look after his family and, when he is released, him too. This is a tragic and embarrassing business.
You Higher Moral Ground folks sound a bit confused to me.
Killing Wounded who are not fighting back is the same no matter their status of Prisoner or Not a Prisoner. The difference is we think it legitimate to kill them from the air but not face to face. You folks who wish to claim the High Moral Ground should embrace that concept as otherwise you give up that Lofty Perch.
I am saying it is immoral to have a double standard such as was applied to the Marine.
It is the double standard I am offended by.
I have never said the Marine did nothing wrong....just that he should be granted the same leeway Apache Pilots are given.
Once a Sniper whacks a fellow and he is plainly wounded, no longer a threat, but then takes a second shot....would you do to the Sniper as happened to the Marine?
What is the difference there?
If a Grunt pops a Taliban fighter with a Small Arms round, knocks him down, and the Wounded guy is laying in the middle of the road....and the Soldier whacks him again.....is that illegal in your book?
You High Moral Ground folks realize you undertake the obligation to render the same medical care to a wounded combatant as to one of our own wounded....right?
Granted the Taliban do not qualify for any protection under the Geneva Accords as they are Illegal Combatants by definition.
When folks get on this higher moral ground argument....they have to remember where it leads.
And so you know....I do not have a severe mental defect....just a strong feeling of disgust over the way the Senior Officers in our militaries will hang out our Troops to dry without taking any responsibility for their own foul deeds and gross incompetence.
How many of our Troops have bled out waiting for a Medevac that did not come until way too late because of some very stupid rules and the refusal to provide the necessary air cover to enable the Helicopters to get to the wounded.
Read up on one fight....Robert's Ridge and the young Air Force PJ named Cunningham then talk to me about Higher Moral Ground, Good Order and Discipline and all that crap.
Last edited by SASless; 9th Dec 2013 at 12:36.
Some people just don't get it.
I believe you were a policeman at one time SAS. Given your own interpretation of the GC and the LOAC which your country and most if not all of the countries of the world have signed up to, did you adhere strictly to the laws of your land or did you pick and choose according to the situation and moment? Say for example, did vigilantes get let off? Anyway, I digress, lets discuss further your own interpretation of the rules and knowledge of the current campaign.
As I and many others pointed out, Apache Pilots are granted permission to fire upon the enemy under the ROE and are also given leeway to carry out a re-attack. There have been many occasions whereby Taliban who have been attacked by AH have managed to escape, with varying degrees of injury, and have returned some time later to carry on the fight. This means that they are still a threat in the future and as such are a valid target. At no time did they surrender and at no time were they a prisoner.
Let me make this clear, this isn't just about the fact that the Taliban was injured. It is about the fact that he was disarmed, no longer a threat, effectively in custody, oh and was also injured. Whether injured or not, he was still shot in the chest by someone who knew that what he was doing was wrong. I think in police speak you could almost call that first degree murder.
At no time, during an air attack, is the person who is being attacked completely disarmed, no longer a threat and in custody/a prisoner. Remember, air attacks don't always work and have left Taliban to fight again. Please tell me you don't want them to return and fight again. The Taliban in this case, I highly doubt he would have been a problem in the future.
SAS, can you tell the difference or is it still a wee bit too difficult?
Is the fellow trying to escape? Is he still attempting to fight? If he is, then fair game. If he is waving the white flag of surrender and clearly intending to surrender then a second shot would not be taken. However, given your interpretation of the LOAC, then presumably a white flag doesn't mean anything?
As has been done in the past, will probably happen today and will happen in the future. Got a problem with that? Of course you do, you don't agree with your country being a signatory to all that GC bull**** do you?
As an aside, when our guys overran the hills at Tumbledown etc, once the guys with whom they had been in bitter conflict became prisoners, each and every soldier, regardless of nationality, were treated with Triage. Do you think the Argentinians should have been left to bleed out till the last? GC anyone?
Oh believe me, those of us who are doing the fighting now are well aware of where this leads. We are also doubly aware of what happens if you completely disregard the LOAC and the GC/Accords.
They weren't on trial here, the Royal was. You can't make a case for murder not being murder by hiding behind the 'it's not our fault, it's our leaders fault' argument. Each and every soldier is also responsible for their own code of conduct at some time. Or are they not?
Tragic indeed, but these stupid rules are actually in place to save lives. Brave helicopter crews do indeed land in hot LZs to evacuate wounded personnel (including Taliban btw) however sometimes the Taliban have carried out an attack with the sole aim of carrying out an ambush on the medivac helicopter. In order to save the lives of the medivac crew and all the others on board the aircraft, it has been necessary to ensure that there is protection for the medivac helicopter. I take it you don't agree.
Read up on the GC, Accords, LOAC, definition of murder etc or don't. You probably don't agree with your country being a signatory, as do a couple of British posters on here. Shall we get rid of them then?
Apparently, just because we used the principle of MAD with regard to nuclear weapons, and were prepared, as part of this policy, to destroy cities with nuclear weapons means that we can pick and choose which parts of the GC and the LOAC we can apply on the battlefield. Once we start picking and choosing which parts we apply and which parts we don't, we are on a slippery slope. We hold ourselves to higher standards regardless of what others do....or so I thought.
I do take your point and outrage at the killing of wedding parties. I seem to recall that your country and its generals, so outraged at the lax ROE in country that allowed this to happen, decided to implement tighter ROE so this wouldn't happen. So, which is it to be in the COIN centric campaign? Tighter ROE to ensure non combatants don't get killed and prisoners not getting murdered or our own on-the-spot interpretation of the rules? As someone who is due to return next year on yet another deployment, I hope this tragedy doesn't affect the lives of those with whom I am deploying. I for one will be applying and adhering to the principles of the LOAC. Anyone else?
The clincher is of course that the Royal, who was there, had been there for a while, and had been subjected to all sorts of horrors knew that what he was doing was wrong. He knew and he was there.
The killing was wrong.....but in my mind does not amount to a Crime.
just that he should be granted the same leeway Apache Pilots are given.
Let me make this clear, this isn't just about the fact that the Taliban was injured. It is about the fact that he was disarmed, no longer a threat, effectively in custody, oh and was also injured. Whether injured or not, he was still shot in the chest by someone who knew that what he was doing was wrong. I think in police speak you could almost call that first degree murder.
At no time, during an air attack, is the person who is being attacked completely disarmed, no longer a threat and in custody/a prisoner. Remember, air attacks don't always work and have left Taliban to fight again. Please tell me you don't want them to return and fight again. The Taliban in this case, I highly doubt he would have been a problem in the future.
SAS, can you tell the difference or is it still a wee bit too difficult?
Once a Sniper whacks a fellow and he is plainly wounded, no longer a threat, but then takes a second shot....would you do to the Sniper as happened to the Marine?
You High Moral Ground folks realize you undertake the obligation to render the same medical care to a wounded combatant as to one of our own wounded....right?
As an aside, when our guys overran the hills at Tumbledown etc, once the guys with whom they had been in bitter conflict became prisoners, each and every soldier, regardless of nationality, were treated with Triage. Do you think the Argentinians should have been left to bleed out till the last? GC anyone?
When folks get on this higher moral ground argument....they have to remember where it leads.
Senior Officers in our militaries will hang out our Troops to dry without taking any responsibility for their own foul deeds and gross incompetence.
How many of our Troops have bled out waiting for a Medevac that did not come until way too late because of some very stupid rules and the refusal to provide the necessary air cover to enable the Helicopters to get to the wounded.
Read up on the GC, Accords, LOAC, definition of murder etc or don't. You probably don't agree with your country being a signatory, as do a couple of British posters on here. Shall we get rid of them then?
Apparently, just because we used the principle of MAD with regard to nuclear weapons, and were prepared, as part of this policy, to destroy cities with nuclear weapons means that we can pick and choose which parts of the GC and the LOAC we can apply on the battlefield. Once we start picking and choosing which parts we apply and which parts we don't, we are on a slippery slope. We hold ourselves to higher standards regardless of what others do....or so I thought.
I do take your point and outrage at the killing of wedding parties. I seem to recall that your country and its generals, so outraged at the lax ROE in country that allowed this to happen, decided to implement tighter ROE so this wouldn't happen. So, which is it to be in the COIN centric campaign? Tighter ROE to ensure non combatants don't get killed and prisoners not getting murdered or our own on-the-spot interpretation of the rules? As someone who is due to return next year on yet another deployment, I hope this tragedy doesn't affect the lives of those with whom I am deploying. I for one will be applying and adhering to the principles of the LOAC. Anyone else?
The clincher is of course that the Royal, who was there, had been there for a while, and had been subjected to all sorts of horrors knew that what he was doing was wrong. He knew and he was there.
Last edited by Toadstool; 9th Dec 2013 at 08:58.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Ts you've secured the moral high ground, and few people myself included can argue that the verdict was incorrect. The sentence however........You all come over as totally without compassion. (My opinion and not necessarily correct of course)
ROG,
moral high ground for being against murder and the consquences for others? Thanks I suppose, that was never my intention. My intention was of course to counter those who think that anything goes, despite their training. Perhaps you should read all my posts for an idea of my compassion. Its there for all to see, you just need to find it.
moral high ground for being against murder and the consquences for others? Thanks I suppose, that was never my intention. My intention was of course to counter those who think that anything goes, despite their training. Perhaps you should read all my posts for an idea of my compassion. Its there for all to see, you just need to find it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got it Ts thanks-- apologies for not checking thoroughly.
Lord West was the other contributor to the Radio5live broadcast today talking of compassion, or the opportunity lost with this"excessive" (sic) sentence to show compassion. I don't know how to get the podcast (if it exists) but the discussion considered the unique nature of the crime and the respective "major players" and 5 yrs absolute max was mentioned but the gist was for a considerably lesser penalty. Naming, they considered shameful.
Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth has been on the radio today saying the sentence is too harsh and he shouldn't have been named.
Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 9th Dec 2013 at 18:32. Reason: missed out the quote
ROG,
Toadstool was quite clearly not trying to secure any kind of high ground, he was simply putting things in context with regard to the LOAC and, if I may say so, saving lives and showing compassion. I am not arguing either way here about the verdict or sentence, just making a point about T's post.
Toadstool was quite clearly not trying to secure any kind of high ground, he was simply putting things in context with regard to the LOAC and, if I may say so, saving lives and showing compassion. I am not arguing either way here about the verdict or sentence, just making a point about T's post.
